User talk:Jclaer

Hello, I'm Jon Claerbout Jclaer (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for checking out my page. I'm a beginner and looking for coaching, both in Wikipedia skills and in data analysis.[reply]

I'll be happy if you add comments here about my page.

This is my first use of the "New Section" button above.[edit]

hello. Jclaer (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latex2html[edit]

A tag has been placed on Latex2html, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Jclaer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of /race-geo[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert math[edit]

As you can see from this edit, I have redirected Hubbert math to Hubbert curve as we agreed on the talk page. H.math was actually subject to deletion under the wp:NEO guidelines, but I thought a redirect would be better as it saves any information you might want to use later, and it is a semi-legitimate search term. Feel free to move important information from H.math to H. curve, but please be aware that you cannot insert any information not found in reliable sources; information that you have synthesized from the sources is original research and therefore not permitted in any wikipedia articles. NJGW (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: When you start a new section on a talk page, it should be at the bottom of the page, not the top. NJGW (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the last version before the redirect: [1]. You can click on the "edit" tab (it will warn you that you are editing an old version), and then copy all the text from there. The upshot is that if you do get published as a text book, you might then become a reliable source... normal conflict of interest caveats apply of course.

Don't feel however that you shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia however. Just understand the best articles are expected to approximate unopinionated literature reviews. NJGW (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting interpretation you've presented. I don't want to suppress your work on the topic, but you have to accept the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a text book. I don't know enough about the math you've posted to accurately merge it with Hubbert curve, so I left that to you, though it needs to be in layman's terms, not the text-book form you now have, and needs to be properly sourced. I'm interested in collaborations such as the one you have in mind for academics, and would love to find collaborators in my field, but Wikipedia is a different type of wiki than that. NJGW (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your projects[edit]

I had a look at some of your projects (in particular User:Jclaer/Can factor analysis yield correlated personality traits, and why do some people think it can?), and I think some of your content would be better served on other wiki's. As you can see from the links I placed in the section above, Wikipedia is not meant for publishing new thoughts (such as asking a new question or attempting to formulate a new answer to a question), only for distilling current established and vetted knowledge. But fear not, many other options exist. For example, see this tutorial on Wikibooks, laying out how to create a new wiki all your own. There are many free wiki sights which can be used to host such information, but Wikipedia is not one of them (since Wikipedia cannot be expected to lend it's credibility to non-peer-reviewed text). Let me know if you have any questions. NJGW (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic wiki's[edit]

What's your opinion: could wiki's be used to replace text books and academic journals (with editing privileges limited to those with perhaps a master's in the subject, and similar requirements of published sources and opinion neutrality and no undue weight to any one position/idea)? My biggest question is how easy it would be to get older academics to learn to edit/maintain this type of project (there's a steep learning curve in the etiquette involved--it's very different from standard Internet etiquette, but different still from daily discourse). NJGW (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 70 years old and a newbee at Wikis. Our department should get a functioning Wiki over the coming months. The great enemy IMHO is Powerpoint. Jclaer (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]